626.924
Information required on contract.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
626.924 Information required on contract.—
(1) Each surplus lines agent through whom a surplus lines coverage is procured shall write or print on the outside of the policy and on any certificate, cover note, or other confirmation of the insurance his or her name, address, and identification number and the name and address of the producing agent through whom the business originated and shall have stamped or written upon the first page of the policy or the certificate, cover note, or confirmation of insurance the words: THIS INSURANCE IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA SURPLUS LINES LAW. PERSONS INSURED BY SURPLUS LINES CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ACT TO THE EXTENT OF ANY RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR THE OBLIGATION OF AN INSOLVENT UNLICENSED INSURER.
(2) Surplus lines policies issued on or after October 1, 2009, shall have stamped or printed on the face of the policy in at least 14-point, boldface type, the following statement: SURPLUS LINES INSURERS’ POLICY RATES AND FORMS ARE NOT APPROVED BY ANY FLORIDA REGULATORY AGENCY.
History.—s. 363, ch. 59-205; s. 5, ch. 63-86; s. 2, ch. 81-318; ss. 305, 318, 807, ch. 82-243; ss. 172, 206, 207, ch. 90-363; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 303, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2009-166.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case: Lemy v. Direct General Finance Co.
Lemy v. Direct General Finance Co. (2012)
“K-M) The complaint alleges that each policy lacks a warning required by Section 626.924(1). Each policy includes the warning.”
Lemy v. Direct General Finance Co. (2012)
“More distinctly, Lemy and Hill allege a violation of Section 626.924, Florida Statutes, which requires a surplus line policy to include two specific disclaimers; Section 626.”
Nautilus Insurance Company v. Pinnacle Engineering & Development, Inc. (2024)
“Additionally, Emuna argues if Nautilus is a surplus lines carrier, it also failed comply with Fla. Stat. § 626.924 requiring express language to be written on any surplus lines policy5 and therefore cannot be excused on this basis.”
Commodore Plaza Condominium Association, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Company (2022)
“See Fla. Stat. § 626.924 (1). Such extensive regulation of the insurance industry “indicates that Florida has a significant interest in litigation involving insurance of risks permanently located in Florida,” further suggesting “that a Florida court would hesitate to defer to…”
— 626.924(1) — 1 case
Lemy v. Direct General Finance Co. (2012)
“K-M) The complaint alleges that each policy lacks a warning required by Section 626.924(1). Each policy includes the warning.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.